Whitney Houston passed away

[Gregg]

you make the call! (performance from 2/10/2012)

I call bad singing. Good old man singing. Bad singing. Really bad Bennett singing. Doesn't sing off key, but can't hit the notes. He is doing what he loves and having fun. His audience is glad to see him. He is no different than any of the pop acts that are out there doing some gigs.

Keep in mind I have no problem with anyone in the music business staying around as long as someone wants to hear them. So I am happy for Tony. Keep it up sir keep it up. I however will not be paying to see him.

[johnnya24]

you make the call! (performance from 2/10/2012)

The dude is 85 years old ... still has that great texture and tone, and enough control to hit the harmonies.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I call bad singing. Good old man singing. Bad singing. Really bad Bennett singing. Doesn't sing off key, but can't hit the notes. He is doing what he loves and having fun. His audience is glad to see him. He is no different than any of the pop acts that are out there doing some gigs.

Keep in mind I have no problem with anyone in the music business staying around as long as someone wants to hear them. So I am happy for Tony. Keep it up sir keep it up. I however will not be paying to see him.

Bad Singing? What makes you say that? I hear a small rasp, but it's still Bennett, the voice is there--though a bit tired and his ear is still there as is his musicality. The difference is, he lacks the smoothness he once had--that's it. I wouldn't put him in the same class as those in top shape (voice) but hardly in the same breath as those who can hardly get through their stuff (see the Who).

[Cobain's Ghost]

i don't think he sounded bad, especially for his age, but i think that old school crooning style of singing is pretty easy to pull off in the first place. i don't get why people fawned over sinatra and bennett in their prime.

[Mithrandir]

i don't think he sounded bad, especially for his age, but i think that old school crooning style of singing is pretty easy to pull off in the first place. i don't get why people fawned over sinatra and bennett in their prime.

If you don't think this is some damn good singing...well....

[Don Quixote]

I call bad singing. Good old man singing. Bad singing. Really bad Bennett singing. Doesn't sing off key, but can't hit the notes. He is doing what he loves and having fun. His audience is glad to see him. He is no different than any of the pop acts that are out there doing some gigs.

Keep in mind I have no problem with anyone in the music business staying around as long as someone wants to hear them. So I am happy for Tony. Keep it up sir keep it up. I however will not be paying to see him.

Well said, and I concur. For anyone else alive, that may have been alright, but for what we've always heard from Tony Bennett, that was just bad.

As for his remarks, they border on senility. Someone prescribed the Xanax, and I'm sure the booze was legal, too--and who was going to tell her not to mix them? Telling the boss she can't do what she wants is a good way to get unemployed. Legalization wouldn't have done diddly-squat for Ms. Houston and her addicted type--they're going to combine sh**, looking for that better high, and if they can't get it via combining, they'll seek out new and ever more dangerous stuff. We've all seen it happen.

[GwynnInTheHall]

i don't think he sounded bad, especially for his age, but i think that old school crooning style of singing is pretty easy to pull off in the first place. i don't get why people fawned over sinatra and bennett in their prime.

I think you couldn't be more wrong. That type of singing exposes your voice--in the days for nothing more than a microphone--all you had was your voice. No production values, no auto tune. It was your voice, nothing more--that made you a singer.

Today there's so much more you can do to make up for the lack of a talented instrument. Now I can appreciate some of the singers of today, but if you think Sinatra and Bennett are easily copied, then why have there been few to do so?--Buble maybe Connick (though he wasn't true to the style) have done it. Sure you can do it poorly, but you got to have a voice- a real voice to pull it off.

I'm guessing with you, it's more about personal preference in styles which makes you feel this way. As someone who's spent his whole life singing, who has a voice that could have made it in the industry, I'm the same way-- I prefer singers with "Legit" voices over grungy screamers, though I can appreciate the real good screamers .

Just like everyone thinks they can sing Elvis or the Eagles or Prince--they really can't. At least not to the level the originals could do it.

[Cobain's Ghost]

hmmmm, do i kick the hornet's nest or walk away? :devilsmiley: maybe i just give it a little poke.

frank sinatra's singing is like whitney houston's singing to me. i like singing that conveys real emotion. their singing does not convey real emotion to me. it's stylistic and technical, but they don't make me believe they actually care about the words coming out of their mouths. they could be singing commercials. it's like musical acting. they don't really feel. they portray feeling.

anyway, that's how it comes across to me. like gith said, it could be a style preference. do they have good voices? yes. do they make me care about what they're singing? no.

you can start throwing your rotten fruits and veggies now.

[Gregg]

I think you couldn't be more wrong. That type of singing exposes your voice--in the days for nothing more than a microphone--all you had was your voice. No production values, no auto tune. It was your voice, nothing more--that made you a singer.

Today there's so much more you can do to make up for the lack of a talented instrument. Now I can appreciate some of the singers of today, but if you think Sinatra and Bennett are easily copied, then why have there been few to do so?--Buble maybe Connick (though he wasn't true to the style) have done it. Sure you can do it poorly, but you got to have a voice- a real voice to pull it off.

I'm guessing with you, it's more about personal preference in styles which makes you feel this way. As someone who's spent his whole life singing, who has a voice that could have made it in the industry, I'm the same way-- I prefer singers with "Legit" voices over grungy screamers, though I can appreciate the real good screamers .

Just like everyone thinks they can sing Elvis or the Eagles or Prince--they really can't. At least not to the level the originals could do it.

Yep and for those who do not agree with this, try watching 100,000 people try it on American Idol. How many are really good.

I like Willie Nelson better than Robert Goulet, but I wouldn't argue he was a better singer.

I much prefer Sinatra to Bennett, but will take Dean Martin over both of them.

Did you notice that most said Bennett was good for an 85 year old? That is a far cry from being good. I think it would be an honor to have lunch with him, but I am not paying to see him sing.

[GwynnInTheHall]

hmmmm, do i kick the hornet's nest or walk away? :devilsmiley: maybe i just give it a little poke.

frank sinatra's singing is like whitney houston's singing to me. i like singing that conveys real emotion. their singing does not convey real emotion to me. it's stylistic and technical, but they don't make me believe they actually care about the words coming out of their mouths. they could be singing commercials. it's like musical acting. they don't really feel. they portray feeling.

anyway, that's how it comes across to me. like gith said, it could be a style preference. do they have good voices? yes. do they make me care about what they're singing? no.

you can start throwing your rotten fruits and veggies now.

I totally understand what you're saying-- As a musician myself--I can appreciate most genre when it comes to music, as long as it's good (good as in really talented). I too want music to speak to me, though I can also appreciate a fine voice. Like last night, I enjoyed Chris Brown much more than the Foo Fighters because IMO, he has a Voice and they don't. Do they equally put on a good show? yes, and maybe the Foo Fighters lyrics and delivery are deeper than Brown's more entertaining songs, but both are quality to me.

No can o worms here, just preference brutha.

I just like great voices, they don't necessarily have to change the world with their songs.

@ Gregg, you must also like Tom Jones eh?

[Judge Jude]

Looks like a doubleheader at Newark's Prudential Center on Friday - morning card has the Whitney Houston funeral. at night, the Devils and Ducks lace up the skates in NHL action.

what a country.....

[johnnya24]

I totally understand what you're saying-- As a musician myself--I can appreciate most genre when it comes to music, as long as it's good (good as in really talented). I too want music to speak to me, though I can also appreciate a fine voice. Like last night, I enjoyed Chris Brown much more than the Foo Fighters because IMO, he has a Voice and they don't. Do they equally put on a good show? yes, and maybe the Foo Fighters lyrics and delivery are deeper than Brown's more entertaining songs, but both are quality to me.

The Foo Fighters are lucky they are around at a time rock music is at a very low ebb ... because they are very very ordinary ... almost forgettable. Coldplay were terrible also.

Where were The Black Keys?

Even then ... cupboard is pretty bare. 5 years is a long time in music ... the mid 00's seemed to be jumping with really good bands.

The best act for me were the "friends of Taylor Swift" ... the unknown couple doing the duet prior to Taylor's banjo rock.

... and I never thought I'd say this, but I actually enjoyed Macca's medley to close the show ... I think it was because I was getting ready to scream if he played Hey Jude, and he didn't ... he didn't even played the most well know Beatles tunes. That kinda worked.

[Gregg]

I totally understand what you're saying-- As a musician myself--I can appreciate most genre when it comes to music, as long as it's good (good as in really talented). I too want music to speak to me, though I can also appreciate a fine voice. Like last night, I enjoyed Chris Brown much more than the Foo Fighters because IMO, he has a Voice and they don't. Do they equally put on a good show? yes, and maybe the Foo Fighters lyrics and delivery are deeper than Brown's more entertaining songs, but both are quality to me.

No can o worms here, just preference brutha.

I just like great voices, they don't necessarily have to change the world with their songs.

@ Gregg, you must also like Tom Jones eh?

Tom Jones was ok, not much of a fan. I preferred Englebert Humperdink. Again I appreciated those guys but didn't own any of their music. I was a rocker from early on.

I liked the cool of Dean Martin when I was 13. I did not appreciate Sinatra, and others of that ilk until my late 30's. My wheelhouse for music was 1966 to 1975. So much good music in that time. Not all great singers but a lot of stories to tell. Thats entertainment!!

[Judge Jude]

"I think it was because I was getting ready to scream if he played Hey Jude"

Hey I love that song!

#notreallybutworkwiththebit

[Mithrandir]

The Foo Fighters are 1000x better than anything I've seen you post in the exceelent music thread. It's all opinion, mang.